Help me understand something /his/, there are those who oppose

>>1168059
>you have reasonable evidence that they have done something wrong or are about too
Torture as defined by the Oxford dictionary

>The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain.

>>1168065
Are you saying they're not related, because they clearly are. You bomb things as a preventive measure, just as you torture for the same reasons.

>>1168076
I'm saying this is invalid and not a requirement for either. Your argument is utterly invalid.
>you have reasonable evidence that they have done something wrong or are about too

>>1168083
>to force them to do or say something
You literally defined why we torture, and in that definition implies what I'm talking about.

File: image.png (136KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 300x450px

>>1168059
>In torture you're not
>Killing the person, you have reasonable evidence that they have done something wrong or are about too, and you at least gave them a choice in the matter ( compared to bombing, in which it's possible to bomb someone without them being involved.)
>hey look my highly specific definition of torture crafter specially for this argument to downplay all its negative aspects and ignore how useless it is for intelligence gathering and how frequently the wrong people get tortured makes it look like bombing people is worse

Gee, you've totally convinced me. What a compelling and flawless argument.

>>1168200
That has nothing to do with it, all it has do with is being consistent. I'm not arguing torture works, or is necessarily a good thing. Im simply saying those who believe in bombing, must also believe in the practice of torture.